.jpg)
Sitting on my bookcase for the last four-plus years was Robert Penn Warren's Pulitzer Prize winning novel, All the King's Men (<--- link to the novel, not the movie). I put it off, stalling after reading a chapter and wanting to kill myself. Every so often I like to torture myself as a reader though so I put my head down and barreled through it. How'd that go? I hated it. Warren's writing style is one that pisses me off, like he's patting himself on the back. "Oh, look what a good writer I am!" with his pages of description and wordiness that go nowhere. We get it. You're smart. Tell your damn story. The story and its characters -- especially the last 100 pages -- saved the book for me. Naturally, I had to check out the movies, starting with 1948's All the King's Men.
An up and coming newspaper reporter, Jack Burden (John Ireland) is assigned to write a story about a backwoods politician, Willie Stark (Broderick Crawford), running for office. Jack is instantly drawn to the honest, genuine nature of Willie even when he loses several elections. Years down the road, Willie is nominated to run as a governor mostly as a way to split votes, but a weird thing happens. Willie starts to speak honestly to the voters, inspiring confidence from the get-go. The election for governor is a laugher, Stark taking it easily. Now working as an aide to Stark, Jack starts to see him change. The new governor has noble aspirations for what he wants to do while in office, but at what cost? How does he accomplish the things he wants? Corruption rears its head in the offices, making Jack question if Willie is in the right or going down a path he can't come back from?
I can think of two movies that are as good if not better than the novel/story they're based on. In other words, the odds aren't with a director to improve on the source of their movie. Warren's book is interesting in that 600-plus pages not much happens while at the same time A LOT is happening. Amidst all his wordy descriptions, seemingly pointless and drifting asides, and passages that go nowhere are characters and a story of politics and its personalities that is very interesting. It just gets lost too much in Warren's "talent." Director Robert Rossen makes a noble effort to condense Warren's novel into a manageable 2-hour movie and succeeds for the most part. Some background and one key twist is dropped for sake of time, but Rossen's movie gets the heart of the story right, Willie Stark's rise to the top and his fight to stay up there.
Reading the novel, I was very aware that Broderick Crawford had played Willie in this first version of the movie. In my head as I read, I was picturing Crawford then, and it is a career best performance. The burly actor with the deep, dark voice earned the only Oscar of his career for his performance as Willie Stark (somewhat loosely based on Louisiana governor Huey Long). A career character actor, Crawford didn't waste his chance at such a major role. I can't picture anyone else playing the part, and that's always a positive. He brings Willie Stark to life, a well-meaning backwoods guy who has his eyes opened up to the reality of politics, money and greed. His speech just hours after he discovers he's being duped to split votes is a definite high, Stark's rage and frustration at the predicament he's in boiling over. You can watch it HERE at Youtube.
With such a dividing figure at the forefront of the movie, obvious questions arise that people will obviously feel different about on a person-to-person basis. Through bullying, bribes and blackmail courtesy of Burden's notebook with all its dirt, Stark's gubernatorial terms accomplish a laundry list of things. A huge hospital is built to serve the people. Roads are improved, schools popping up all over, and a better way of life is created. There is a certain corruption you just expect with government as power individuals want to get things done and don't care how they get it done. Through all of Stark's corruption and badgering and bullying, there's still the part of me that is on his side just a little bit. He gets the job done and seems, seems to have the public's best interest at heart. Is that the case? Maybe not, but Stark here and in Warren's novel makes it an interesting question.
No doubt about it, Crawford is the reason to see this movie. The supporting cast varies from average to above average, some of the fault being attributed to 600-plus pages being condensed into a 110-minute movie. Characters aren't going to get the development, motivation or reasoning they did in the book. Ireland received a Best Supporting Actor nomination, but I thought his performance as Jack Burden was somewhat lacking without much in the way of energy. Mercedes McCambridge won the Best Supporting Actress for her role as Sadie Burke, Willie's aide/secretary who's involved with him in more ways than one. Joanne Dru plays Anne Stanton, Jack's girlfriend who's instantly drawn to Willie, John Derek is Tom Stark, Willie's adopted son, Shepperd Strudwick plays Adam Stanton, a respected doctor and Anne's brother who Willie wants to work with, and Raymond Greenleaf as Judge Stanton (Irwin in the novel), an aging but reputable public official suspicious of Willie's motives.
While Rossen's novel to film transition is a smooth one, there is still something missing. He films it in black and white, appropriate for the backwoods, dirt road setting of the story, and the movie feels real in its portrayals of the story and characters. It's interesting but without much in the way of energy. The ending was also a little disappointing because it ends too abruptly. The novel allowed the ending to breathe, to let characters figure things out as needed. The 1949 film still is a good, interesting watch and does a worthy job of molding Warren's novel into something more easily digested.
All the King's Men <---TCM trailer/clips (1949): ***/****
No comments:
Post a Comment